The telecommunications industry is on the verge of a major change in the way local telephone service is provided. Traditionally, a single service provider provided local service for all telephone subscribers within a local market. However, under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, multiple service providers may operate within a local market and compete for local subscribers. In the competition for local subscribers, the existing service provider has an advantage over other service providers if local telephone subscribers must change telephone numbers to change service providers. To eliminate any advantage that the existing local service provider may have due to a subscriber's reluctance to change telephone numbers, a local telephone subscriber is permitted to keep an existing telephone number even though the subscriber changes service providers. Local Number Portability ("LNP") is the mechanism which allows a local telephone subscriber to keep an existing telephone number even though the subscriber changes local service providers.
Currently, each subscriber telephone line is assigned a directory number or telephone number. A directory number is the number that is dialed or input by a calling party to place a telephone call. Each directory number in the United States includes ten digits (e.g. 404-222-2500). A directory number contains a three digit area code ("NPA") followed by a three digit exchange code ("NXX"). The first six digits of a directory number are referred to as the "NPA-NXX." For example, there are 10,000 directory numbers that start with the NPA-NXX 404-222 (i.e., 404-222-0001, 404-222-0002, etc.).
In a non-LNP enabled telecommunications network, each NPA-NXX is typically assigned to a single switch. However, in an LNP enabled telecommunications network, an NPA-NXX is no longer assigned to a single switch. A directory number may be "ported" to a switch served by a different service provider so the NPA-NXX of a directory number no longer uniquely identifies a switch. Traditional telephone routing procedures assume that the NPA-NXX of a directory number uniquely identifies a switch. To accommodate LNP, new telephone routing procedures are needed because the NPA-NXX of a directory number no longer uniquely identifies a switch.
To route a telephone call in an LNP enabled telecommunications network, the originating switch may refer to an LNP database to determine which switch serves a particular directory number. The LNP database includes a list of directory numbers and corresponding Local Routing Numbers ("LRN"). An LRN identifies the switch which serves the directory number. Each local service provider may maintain its own LNP database. For example, if a telephone call is placed from a directory number in Network A to a directory number in Network B, the originating switch in Network A refers to an LNP database in Network A to determine where the call should be routed. The LNP database includes an entry for the called directory number which indicates that the directory number is served by a switch in Network B. Therefore, the originating switch in Network A routes the telephone call to a switch in Network B.
When a subscriber changes local service providers, the subscriber's directory number is ported to a network managed by a different local service provider. To reflect the change, the local service providers must update their respective LNP databases with network information for the new local service provider. Ideally, all of the LNP databases are updated simultaneously so that calls to the subscriber's directory number are properly routed after the change in service providers. However, in reality, there is a delay between updates because the updates are performed independently by each local service provider. If the LNP databases are not updated simultaneously, then a non-call associated message may "loop" between local service provider networks, i.e., the message may be routed between the networks in a loop until both LNP databases are updated.
For example, looping may occur if a subscriber moves from local service provider A to local service provider B and the LNP databases are not all updated when a CLASS (Custom Local Area Signaling Services) service such as the "Repeat Dialing" service is invoked for the subscriber's directory number. Prior to the move, the LNP database for local service provider A and the LNP database for local service provider B both indicate that the subscriber's directory number is served by a switch in Network A. After the move, local service provider A updates its LNP database to indicate that the subscriber's directory number is served by a switch in Network B. However, local service provider B does not immediately update its LNP database so its LNP database still indicates that the customer's number is served by a switch in Network A.
If the subscriber's directory number is initially busy, Repeat Dialing may be invoked to monitor the directory number to determine when the directory number is available. Once the subscriber's directory number is available, the call may be completed. Non-call associated messages are used to monitor the status of the subscriber's directory number. Some of the messages require Global Title Translation ("GTT"). If the call to the subscriber's directory number originates in Network A, the Network A switch queries the LNP database of Network A to determine which switch serves the directory number. The LNP database of Network A indicates that a switch in Network B serves the directory number, so Network A sends a message to Network B to determine the status of the called number. When Network B receives the message, the LNP database of Network B is queried to determine which switch serves the directory number. The LNP database of Network B indicates that the message should be routed to a switch in Network A so Network B sends the message back to Network A. The message continues to loop between Network A and Network B until the LNP database of Network B is updated. Looping may also occur if there is an error in one of the LNP databases. An error may arise from a human error or a processing error.
Looping is a problem because a looping message consumes network resources and negatively impacts network performance and reliability. Looping messages also create an overload condition on the network, causing legitimate calls to fail. Several solutions have been proposed to solve the looping problem. One proposed solution involves marking a message with a "dirty" bit. A dirty bit is set by the originating network before the message is sent. The originating network checks the dirty bit for each message it receives from another network. If the dirty bit is set, then the originating network detects a loop. A disadvantage of the dirty bit proposal is that the dirty bit must be preserved by all local service providers. However, there is no provision for a dirty bit in the existing message routing protocol, so there is no guarantee that the dirty bit will be preserved.
Another proposed solution is "gateway screening". This solution requires that a network screen messages received from other networks to detect a looping message. A message received from another network is screened to determine whether the message originated in the network receiving the message. If the message originated in the network receiving the message, then the message is dropped. A disadvantage of this solution is that it will only detect loops involving an originating network. If a loop occurs between two non-originating networks, it is not detected.
A third proposed solution is transaction ID logging. Transaction ID logging maintains a log of messages recently sent to other networks and compares a message received from another network to the message log. If the received message matches a message in the log, a loop is detected. The log is maintained so that it only contains messages sent within a predetermined period of time. An advantage of transaction ID logging is that it is a self-sufficient solution. Transaction ID logging may be implemented by one local service provider regardless of whether other local service providers implement it. Another advantage is that it works with existing message protocols.
Although transaction ID logging is theoretically appealing, it has not been previously implemented because of concerns that it would S adversely impact network performance. The Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC"), a group formed to study message looping in LNP enabled telecommunications networks and to provide recommended solutions, considered but did not pursue transaction ID logging. The IIC Subcommittee concluded that transaction ID logging was too processor intensive, and therefore, did not pursue transaction ID logging.
Accordingly, there is a need in the art for an implementation of transaction ID logging in which the time to compare a new transaction to the existing transaction entries in the transaction log is minimized. There is also a need in the art for an implementation of transaction ID logging in which the time to maintain a transaction log is minimized.